Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 67367 (BOM)

VILAS BHUMA CHAVAN v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PARISHAD BEED AND OTHERS

WP/12972/2025 · 2025-11-04

Shri Hiten S Venegavkar, Smt Vibha Kankanwadi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 wp 12972.25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 942 WRIT PETITION NO. 12972 OF 2025 Vilas Bhuma Chavan VERSUS The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed And Others ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. R.W. Bagul AGP for Respondents: Mr. A M Phule CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. Dated : November 04, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. Present petition challenges the communication/order dated 18.8.2025 issued by Respondent no.1 and for consequential prayers. 2. Present petitioner came to be appointed on contract basis as ‘Block Coordinator’. It appears that a FIR came to be filed against the petitioner vide Crime No.375 of 2025 with Gevrai Police Station, District Beed under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also reveals from the record that when the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge under P.C. Act, on 17.6.2025 P.C.R. was granted for a day i.e. till 18.6.2025. He came to be released on bail by order dated 23.6.2025 and thereafter the impugned order has been passed thereby his appointment has been terminated i.e. put to an end to the contractual appointment. 2025:BHC-AUG:30466-DB 2 wp 12972.25.odt 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that procedure was not adopted and hearing has not been given. As per the contract, the period would come to an end by 12.11.2025. 4. Here it is to be noted that appointment was on contractual basis. Even for an employee with Zilla Parishad, the integrity that is required from an employee is equivalent to the regular Government Employee. He appears to have been in custody for 24 hours and the allegations against him is under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under such circumstance, we do not find any illegality. Under the circumstance, the impugned order has been passed. Petition is devoid of merits, hence stands dismissed. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) ... aaa-